Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1754th
  Defense+0.1357th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense42.0%43rd
  Defense42.5%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2258th
  Defense+1.1472nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0737th
  Defense+0.1526th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2869th
  Defense+0.1087th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%29th
  Defense48.4%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%57th
  Defense29.9%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8543rd
  Defense2.9540th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%73rd
  Defense18.2%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%96th
  Defense2.3%69th

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2014

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Iowa allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   UNI
2. W
   BALL
3. L
   ISU
4. W
   PITT
5. W
   PUR
6. W
   IU
7. L
   MD
8. W
   NU
9. L
   MINN
10. W
    ILL
11. L
    WIS
12. L
    NEB
13. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2014

1. Jake RudockQB335 plays · +0.303 pts/play · 33rd of 199 QBs
   1.90WAR1.33 to 2.52
2. Mark WeismanRB178 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 23rd of 350 RBs
   0.47WAR0.33 to 0.59
3. C.J. BeathardQB70 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 147th of 199 QBs
   0.36WAR0.25 to 0.47
4. Jordan CanzeriRB89 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 159th of 350 RBs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
5. Tevaun SmithWR51 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 135th of 469 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
6. Kevonte Martin-ManleyWR64 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.22
7. Marshall KoehnPK12 plays · +0.430 pts/play · 69th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. Damon BullockRB28 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 255th of 350 RBs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Iowa's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Iowa's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.17 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at MDQ4 14:46 4th & 2 at MD 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs ISUQ4 11:33 4th & 6 at ISU 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs UNIQ4 12:42 4th & 2 at IOWA 29, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at MDQ3 13:02 4th & 6 at MD 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at TENNQ2 9:37 4th & 1 at IOWA 38, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs IUQ4 10:15 4th & 1 at IOWA 49, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at MDQ4 1:19 4th & 5 at MD 6, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs IUQ3 2:54 4th & 2 at IU 49, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

99th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Iowa's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UNI
2. W

   BALL
3. L

   ISU
4. W

   PITT
5. W

   PUR
6. W

   IU
7. L

   MD
8. W

   NU
9. L

   MINN
10. W

    ILL
11. L

    WIS
12. L

    NEB
13. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Iowa's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.44
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.52

Game by game

• UNIW 31-23 vs UNI92% → 97%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• BALLW 17-13 vs BALL90% → 96%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +1
• ISUL 17-20 vs ISU85% → 6%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• PITTW 24-20 at PITT40% → 84%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +42, Clock +4
• PURW 24-10 at PUR81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• IUW 45-29 vs IU70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• MDL 31-38 at MD42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• NUW 48-7 vs NU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34
• MINNL 14-51 at MINN50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −48, Clock +1
• ILLW 30-14 at ILL64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• WISL 24-26 vs WIS30% → 5%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• NEBL 34-37 vs NEB55% → 12%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −19
• TENNL 28-45 at TENN37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1

Points of win probability, from Iowa's side.

Closest call

NU 14-40 IOWA (2024) - Iowa dropped to a 3.7% win probability before pulling it out.